![]() |
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page is WP:Self published source, according to at least two users besides me, on the talk page. It is being used as an advertisement to portray him and his company with what the court has not allowed them. See court halts bogus claims and see former version of Davison Design & Development (before my latest edits) and compare with current one. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- as stated above פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((agree|Delete page))
As the article's creator, I disagree with the proposed deletion, and I disagree that the article is "self-promotion"--any more than any biography of a living person is self-promotion. Per the procedures for objecting to a proposed deletion I will remove the "proposed deletion" tag from the article. Here and on the Davison article's Talk page, I offer my reasoning for keeping the biography as its own page, according to the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for People: 1) Davison is "worthy of notice" as founder and CEO of an American business with 250 employees; 2) he meets the basic criteria of being the subject of multiple published, independent sources (media), including a book about inventors; as additional criteria, he has made a recognized contribution that is part of the record of his industry as a) a patent-holder of at least eight patents, and b) an invited member of the Popular Mechanics "Brain Trust" roundtable; and 3) as a local Pittsburgh philanthropist. The article was also reviewed and accepted per the Wikipedia procedures for article creation and submission. --Christi212Cassidy (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, people, I offer these specifics, referencing the original text of the notability guidelines, in defense of keeping and not deleting this article about George McConnell Davison:
To answer the question of "which of the independent sources give him, rather than his business, substantial coverage," here are several sources:
Christi212Cassidy (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Source Information
Thank you for acknowledging Davison's inclusion in Edison's Concrete Piano, and for the opportunity to dig deeper into my sources. One by one, here are clarifications and arguments for maintaining this article about George McConnell Davison:
Christi212Cassidy (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor; has played a handful of minor roles in non-notable films. Possibly vanity/promotion article. There are five links in the references section; two are dead, one does not mention the article subject, and one is IMDB. Holdek (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to ladder; no proposal to delete by nominator or participants. (Non-admin closure). Ansh666 06:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose redirecting to ladder Andrew327 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Keep !vote by nominator indicates withdrawn nomination, no non-Keep !votes. The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me that the subject meets the notability requirements here. If a source could be found to confirm that he was indeed a Hero of the Soviet Union, then I believe the page should be kept. I have tried and failed to find such a source; I don't read Russian. I've had no luck persuading the creator of the article that it needs reliable sources. The article was at its creation a near-complete copyvio from Celebrities, a source I have removed as obviously unreliable. I'd appreciate the advice of others on both the notability and the copyright aspects. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - There is clearly a basic consensus, even with the main contributor that the page should be deleted because subject lacks notability, its content has been userfied. (Non admin closure) Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sportscaster lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. References are mostly primary in nature. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will disagree; Even you delete it, I will still find a way to improve it. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Per overwhelming consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actual topic of article appears to be "Celebrities with ADHD" per the content. Violation of WP:BLP all over the place, using highly unreliable gossip/tabloid sources. None of those covered are notable due to their purported ADHD status. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68
20:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable district. I could not find any reliable sources to establish any notability. Tinton5 (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak (Non-admin closure). Ansh666 06:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable documentary. Possible conflict of interest: article creator is SayAhh (talk · contribs). Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional material without encyclopaedic value. The article is nothing but an ad for the Vortex Flash Hider from Smith Enterprises. Thomas.W talk to me 18:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. No evidence of any awards, or major reviews of her works. Her music has been used in some commercials, if her own YouTube videos of said commercials are to be believed (that is the sole source of verification of said facts), and in some films and trailers, but not to any notable degree. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I researched and updated her Wikipedia page. The fact that MTV decided to include her in its 'Artists List' is an indication of her public presence in the music industry. Apart from that, the collaboration in major advertisements for companies such as 'Audi' and 'Peugeot' as well as in the soundtrack of cinematic films further strengthens her professional profile. In my opinion, one does not have to reach the top in order to have its work accredited and recognized. Wikipedia is not a 'VIP Club'. NickCitizen
No delete I will admit that the article needs some work, and it reads like it's most likely a selfie. I do feel, however, that having almost a million hits on a myriad of posted videos and having her work associated with a number of internationally recognized films/television shows definitely makes her notable. Stub the page then fix the page - don't eliminate it.Jmasiulewicz (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising that fails Notability. This is a speculative article about an unrealeased future product from a company seeking to generate buzz in order to attract investors. The only coverage is blog posts from the likes of Wired, Gizmodo, etc who simply regurgitate press releases and cool looking graphics from anybody with a sci-fi looking idea. This is trivial coverage and fails the requirement for sustained, in depth coverage from independent sources. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article describing the product that is being developed. Anyone who wants more coverage than well-known and respectable Wired and Gizmodo is welcome to Moscow to look at working prototypes. Maybe the community wants more photos of the working process? It's not quite a problem. Just for information - the "copyrighted image" is not the property of Wired, but a part of LiveMap video. If Mr. Bratland payed more attention to the question he could notice it. Anyway he is welcome to visit Moscow too. --Bear on bike (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No longer a high school, so is not automatically Notable, and article gives no claim for Notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no third-party reliable source to prove its notability. Reference #1~3 and #5~12 are all self-published (some are duplicated), while #4 and #13 lead to domain statistic websites, which can't be considered as primary sources. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW; there's no question this doesn't belong here. Please visit http://en.wikiquote.org/ instead. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Any salvageable, attributable quotes belong on Wikiquote. Kolbasz (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable minor league baseball player, never advanced past the low minors. Previous afd led to merge but he is no longer with any organization so merge is no longer possible. Spanneraol (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP. His work is not highly cited and he has a H-index of about 8 according to google scholar while in a highly cited field (WP:ACADEMIC. English is the language of science, but I could find no secondary sources, so WP:GNG is not met. The article consists of an uncited claim about developing a particular theory, which may be original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to UFO sightings in China. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable reported close encounter of the seventh kind. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a page made for fun as the maker himself said on radio live that it was never serious and its causing the NZ country to divide its an embarrassment to NZ that we have such uneducated small minded people. Many agree! He admitted he doesn't even know much about New Zealand history and it isn't an actual party yet.
This unregistered party in New Zealand, based on a Facebook group, was just created recently - the Facebook group itself was only created June 20. They have not yet published any sort of policy or platform (according to one article "supporters who sign up to its website - which is currently under construction - will be able to vote for its policy platforms in the coming weeks"). There is exactly one reliable source about it ([5], [6]) and a couple blog posts ([7], [8]). Does not meet WP:GNG, nor does anyone affiliated with the party. Its article also has very little useful content - its only section is dedicated to grammatical errors on their Facebook page, and it has serious POV issues ("is a racist political party", "Whether the Pakeha Party are "serious", or just "not very smart", is still a hotly contested topic"). It may materialize into a more substantial unregistered party in the coming months, but it's not there yet. Dcoetzee 09:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP; promotional. The majority of the article pertains to the grand opening of a new department that is being endorsed by a celebrity. All the press is on that one event, mostly speaking to the celebrity's involvement and not so much on the practice itself. All of it is from Metro Philadelphia, excepting the Yahoo ref, which is a reposting of a press release and not independent. I doubt anyone would assert that a veterinarian is going to be notable without the celebrity tie-in. It is promotional due to the severe name dropping on "prominent" people in attendance at the grand opening and the depth of coverage given the one-day event. It is a vet clinic, not a stage for celebs to perform on; where is the notable content on the vet clinic? Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No longer a current route, covered in other articles, permastub. Routes made up of mainly notable roadways should also be deleted (This route is covered by: Western Distributor, Victoria Road, Sydney (incl. Gladesville Bridge), James Ruse Drive, and Bells Line of Road (The only subroad(s) without articles are Windsor and Old Windsor Roads)) Nbound (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page created by a COI editor. It's been CSD'd already (iirc). Article is extremely adverty and spammy. The almighty Google God shows nothing in regards to news articles and really nothing in regards to the company being notable. Dusti*poke* 05:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like some editors to give their input on how does this pass wp:GNG. Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Violates various provisos of WP:NOT. The list can never be complete, nor can a viable criteria for inclusion on the list be established. Previous discussion closed as no-consensus after being ARS canvassed. pbp 03:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jack Woodford. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NBOOK. I thought that this was an obvious redirect as it contains only the text from the back cover of the book (possibly copyvio if it's the entire back cover), the dedication, acknowldgements, the table of contents and alternative titles considered by the author, but an editor reverted my redirect. I can't find sources meeting our criteria for notabiity. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 19:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incomplete and unnecessary list created in 2010. It only describes two characters, and them mostly with a plot regurgitation. It touches on the differences from the novel and other adaptations, but the little that might be worth saving could be merged into the film article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and does not turn up in any search Joostik (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 23:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable animation director. Beerest355 Talk 18:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BALL - about a future film that's yet to be produced. No notability asserted. Dusti*poke* 02:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:ORG. No references apart from main page. Seems to be advertising article for newly created Swiss holistic well-being site. Magazine seems to be very very new. scope_creep 22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. AfD is not the venue to discuss a merger or move of perfectly notable material, but it was done, so that's it. The discussion has gone on for over two weeks, without any consensus to delete this material from the encyclopedia. Whoever wants to be bold can move or merge the material, without further discussion as far as I'm concerned. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This term doesn't seem to have caught on as a concept the way, say, "Enterprise 2.0" has. Yes, there are a few references that use the term "Travel 2.0", but that's to be expected - the same as you can find phrases like "Comedy 2.0" or "Food 2.0" or "Shopping 2.0", etc. "Travel 2.0" seems to mean nothing more than websites for travelers, plus perhaps technologies like GPS. The vague, essay-like text currently in the article I think is further proof that there's no real body of thinking behind this term. Yaron K. (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fringe left-wing group that the almighty Google knows little about. LiquidWater 20:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus here is clearly for the article to be retained. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 06:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself doesn't bother to make a claim to notability, but this shop was once in the news. It was formally called "Badger Guns." In 2010, the Brady Center center named it the No. 1 shop in the U.S. that sold guns to criminals.[21] It no longer sells guns. I think this is covered under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. 2NewEvolution1 (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 06:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. None of the references have in depth coverage on the bank. There are many references on the web to this, but all are related to a single event, the shenanigans around Bernard Madoff; or are passing mentions. There are some press releases and interviews with company officers but they aren't independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains no assertion of notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, because there is quite some results in the Google News Archive search. EditorE (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG Uberaccount (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This now defunct collective of webcomics was always less notable than the individual webcomics that it was made of. The collective itself (rather than the member comics acting independently) seems not to have done much to pass WP:42. LukeSurl t c 09:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. King Jakob C2 11:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Escalating from prod. Not a single award mentioned in text appears notable. Big list of external links none of which look mainstream. A few references cited in a book format, none of which I can verify, and which could well be just exhibition uncatalogued or such. Definitely needs opinion from a German speaker to verify sources/comment on notability in German-language net. A German speaker may want to AfD de:Timo Kahlen to get input from de Wiki editors. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article can do with some sorting the references from the German counterpart convinced me of its notability. While I did not remember the name of the artist I certainly can remember the presscoverage of the cleaner incident in Amberg. Agathoclea (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC) P.S.: de:Deutscher Klangkunst-Preis seems relevant on deWiki Agathoclea (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Escalating from prod. Not a single award mentioned in text appears notable. No inline cites. Big list of a lot of stuff, none of which look mainstream; that includes a long list of "bibliography" which likely is heavily composed of a passing mention in tiny circulation exhibition catalogs or such. Needs opinion from a Russian speaker to verify sources/comment on notability in Russian-language net. Can't verify if a ru wiki article exists as the creator did not add the subject name in Cyrillic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local hospital. Insufficient independent sources from which to draw a verifiable article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to fail WP:ORG. 2 of the 4 references don't work, the 3rd is a very small mention and the last is a single line on a web page. Seems to assert NN. scope_creep 00:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)